I’m reading an excellent book by by the Jungian analyst James Hollis called “FInding Meaning in the Second Half of Life“. On his chapter on family, he wonders what would happen to our lives and to our world if parents could “unconditionally affirm the child“, saying in so many words:
You are precious to us; you will always have our love and support; you are here to be who you are; try never to hurt another, but never stop trying to become yourself as fully as you can; when you fall and fail, you are still loved by us and welcomed to us, but are also here to leave us, and to go onward toward your own destiny without having to worry about pleasing us.
Of course, I find this an excellent analogy for the church. Even though I experienced so much good within the church, largely my experience was the opposite of the above. The church’s words, in my experience, were more like:
You are precious to us as long as you toe the line; you will always have our love and support as long as you conform; you are here to be who you are meant to be; try never to hurt another unless it is necessary in the Lord, and be willing to be hurt by us because it will be the Lord; your real self is sinful so don’t try to be yourself; when you fall and fail, we will express our love for you through discipline, and if you don’t comply you will no longer be welcomed, but that’s of your own doing; you are here to stay, but if you leave it is only if we send you out with a blessing to reproduce exactly what we have here; and if you go on to follow your path you are on your own and we will not be pleased until you return repentant like the prodigal son.
What if the church chose to embrace and proclaim the first quote with sincerity and conviction? In my opinion, this would be true evangelism and a revolutionary kind of church-planting where new, diverse and unique communities of unconditional love would crop up all over the place.
Instead, we witness a remarkable disintegration of church life and reproduction because the level of conformity required is too demanding, soul-killing and life-sucking. It creates a path of pain and a world of woundedness. Instead of a flourishing of rich layers of expression, we see departures of so many unwilling to ever be associated again with such a dysfunctional model of family and relationship.
I’m determined, as I hope you might be, in being ambassadors of the first quote. That is good news.
illustrating spiritual paths
I think too many people and institutions seek conformity because they see it as best thereby sucking the life out of people. I’m just grateful that at 47 years old, I’ve truly come into my own and am no longer walking in or being stifled by what my parents, a church, co-workers, etc. think. Oh, I’ll listen to your feedback, but I will no longer deny or squelch what I believe and desire.
That’s been my experience of the church, too – the latter description – the arms are open as long as I am a good girl.
Outstanding, David! You, as usual, hit the proverbial nail on the head!
YES! Well said. Thanks.
CBC radio had a wonderful interview with the author not too long ago here:
http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2011/10/23/midlife/#socialcomments
What you say about conformity in church never hits home for me. I don’t know why that is. I’ve not felt such pressures nor know people who can’t develop their individuality.
Excellent analogy, Dave! It’s bad enough there is so much dysfunction within the ‘church’. When I finally realized that I was transferring the conditional nature of my church relationships over to how I dealt with and viewed those dearest to me…..well, that’s when the walls started to cave in. I couldn’t bear shutting out those who I wanted to love so much (cognitive dissonance, I guess), and so the need to stay true to what I believed in my heart pushed us to risk being ‘disowned’ by the church ‘fellowship’. Healing the relationships I/we unwittingly sabotaged can be a long road! But it will all be well. Thanks for your continuing courage to be honest & public about your own journey!
To me, it all goes back to what ‘church’ is. I totally agree that Christianity, as the organized ‘church’ should be aiming towards the first quote, and that the second quote is totally a perversion of the message of Jesus.
That said, church as an organization usually has to have some kind of basic guidelines and rules. Some places manage to keep it basic, but any time you have a regular social gathering, you are faced with the same issues of ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ and ‘duty’ that any grouping has…be it a family, clan, school, trade union, government party, etc etc.
The old adage that my freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose is helpful to a point, but the more people and the more ‘belief’ and ‘scripture/teachings’ come into play, the more complex it becomes to figure out where the lines are. Part of my decision to not call myself a christian any more was that I felt it was needlessly obscuring the issue. Did I hold most of the tenets of the faith? no. If I couldn’t agree with the vast majority of the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed (both considered pretty much standard orthodox statements) without a ton of explanations and footnotes, and if some of what I didn’t beleive was the crux of the religion….well maybe it was time for me to stop using the label.
There is no way the church as a large institution can hold fast to the first quote, and it is very challenging for them to not fall completely in line with the second (though some do much better at it, almost all of them dip into that pool at least a bit). Of course, the obvious observation is that Jesus didn’t call us to create large institutions, and therein lies one of the biggest problems.
The saddest thing, to carry your post a bit farther, is that like a dysfunctional family, most of the dysfunction is passed on through the generations, so it is very difficult for churches that aren’t ‘traditional’ to be given a chance, meanwhile, ‘new’ isn’t always ‘better’ and tradition isn’t always wrong. Sometimes non-traditional churches are bringing forth the worst of the dysfunction, that sometimes traditions has helped diffuse. Many ‘middle-of-the-road’ churches may be ridiculed for not having a stronger message, but then again, they are seldome on the lunatic fringe, either.
The saddest of all is that the families and individuals that make up the church, often internalize the dysfunction to their own selves and their own family members. Some of the most fucked up families I know of have been ‘raised’ in the church for several generations. I would go so far as to say some of the more dysfunctional aspects of organized church have even become imbedded in our national dialogue… especially in the United States, but also in Canada and Britain, and I’m guessing in other countries as well. How much does the rhetoric of being a ‘Christian Country’ come into play in ways that are anyting but loving and accepting. What ‘Christian’ ideals are being promoted?
Not that any of this is new to you, I’m sure, just me reflecing aloud, for whatever its worth.
The first quote is relevant in so many ways – parenting/teaching/mentoring. All of us in friendships and other relationships could use this to guide those we influence as well.
But I deviate from the intent of your piece. David, maybe the naked pastor would like to start that church?!?
Are you a transition assistant, or one seeking to find a better way/system? This is what Jesus did? You have heard it said… but I say to you…! I admire and appreciate all you do David. I believe your strong suit is living out loud, sharing your journey. Filling a gap that the church won’t? They can’t. Never could. Can’t give what they don’t have to give. We all need to find our own way. Thank you for sharing yours.
It’s so sad that our families are an extension of the church, thereby, never getting a break
@Dawn, it’s really something when both come crashing in you all at once which is what happened to me in 2010-April 2011. I spent the rest of 2011 processing all that happened and staking a claim for my independence and honesty to self. I’ve set some new boundaries with everyone in my life and it feels good.
The first quote is The Way of the Good News Message.
The second quote is The Way of Empire.
I love my family (with all it’s faults)…and I love my church family (with all it’s faults).
We weren’t meant to be lone rangers in life, and we were meant to a part of a church family. There are good ones out there (although I know finding them is not the focus here – just bagging on the bad ones)
Utopians and perfectionists proably have a rough time with being together with people who have faults. Maybe that is why there are so many of them that are angry and miserable so much of the time.
Nancy T. I love your statement, “the obvious observation is that Jesus didn’t call us to create large institutions, and therein lies one of the biggest problems.” I may borrow that.
My friend sent your link to me and I can’t tell you how I was blown away by your blog post – you have described my church experience to a “T”. I have entered a church believing in the first quote, only to find that the second quote is applicable. I refer to myself as a renegade Christian because my way of following Christ and serving God run contrary to most church dictates.
Christ was a leader and He put up no barriers to following Him. Unfortunately, far too many churches put up man-made rules which seem to be designed to exclude as opposed to include.
“We weren’t meant to be lone rangers in life, and we were meant to a part of a church family.”
I have heard this statement so many times…and each time it is simply given as a foregone conclusion…as if it is so obvious that it verifies itself.
Not sure about the lone ranger part…but I KNOW that it does not require a “church family” to provide the relational support we need in our lives. In fact a traditional “church family” may actually destroy our ability to form healthy and nurturing relationships.
Christ and His Spirit gather us together (there is the church) to hear His Word and receive His Sacraments.
“Where two or three are gathered”.
There is the church family.
“Where two or three are gathered” is indeed a wonderful promise. Anything beyond this statement is subject to interpretation. I have seen all sorts of things (the proverbial kitchen sink) attached to it as carry on baggage however.
I love this post. I try to live by the first, and am one of many who have been hurt by the second.
One question I have is how do we spread love and acceptance even in the midst of a church culture that embraces the second attitude?
That’s a good question Raine. All you can do is love and leave the rest up to them.
Thannk you so much for providing this commentary on the church. It impacted me deeply because it isn’t so much the church as described here that affected me in recent years, but more the emotional baggage and internal perception that I had of God – in other words, that God is like the 2nd description, and it has nearly broken me living under that perception. Now I can more clearly see that God is not a conditional lover of his people.